8 ms·
Crash: China Eastern B738 near Guangzhou on Mar 21st 2022
- the-dude 5y ago
- Oberbaumbrucke 5y agoDid you just make that up?
- ledauphin 5y agono, a -800 is a NG but not a MAX.
- yeeetz 5y agoThe plane was delivered in 2014/2015 and isn't a MAX. Do you just make up and post whatever's on your mind?
- gruez 5y agoTo be fair there were articles saying that the 737 max was being brought back under the name "737-8200", which is pretty similar to the "737-800" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-...
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoMaking a reference to whatever related subject has a lot of mindshare is a pretty common format for low effort comments around here. It's just HN's high brow version of making an equally low effort quip about the front falling off. It clearly gets a positive reception sufficiently more often than a negative one or people wouldn't do it.
- tomfanning 5y agoIt would be better for everyone if this were deleted.
- the-dude 5y agoI stand corrected, I did not recall correctly.
- zethus 5y agomemory is a curious function
- justsomehnguy 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation#737-800 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation#737... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation#Further_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation#Fur... > In 2011, Boeing launched the 737 MAX, an updated and re-engined version of the 737NG
- GekkePrutser 5y agoNo 737-800 is not max. It's just one of the longer NGs. There's an even longer -900 too. So whatever happened, it's safe to say it was not MCAS. I wonder what did happen though.. But no doubt they authorities will find this out in due course. Some posted videos basically show it going almost vertically down :( RIP.
- fsflover 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30751785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30751785
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoThis makes me sad. Horrible news.
- iso1631 5y ago
- solids 5y agoThere’s no indicator at all that this plane suffered a technical failure.
- DennisP 5y agoThis early, absence of evidence is definitely not evidence of absence.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y agoIt's too early to say anything authoritative about it, isn't it?
- striking 5y agoIt's not a Max
- tormeh 5y agoIt's not a Max, but it's extremely clear that the 737 is an outdated aircraft family. It's not directly relevant to this crash, probably, but it makes me a bit sad that we can't find our way out of this kind of local minimum.
- kube-system 5y agoThe 737-800 was launched in 1994, which is not old at all by aircraft standards. And it is in the top 5 lowest crash rates of any airliner.
- tormeh 5y agoThe 737 family is from 1967, so it's fairly old.
- elboru 5y agoIn that photo the plane looks totally vertical. Is that common on crash accidents?
- aunty_helen 5y agoNo. It shows a complete loss of control. There was an air crash episode on a crash from the 80s but other than that I can’t think of another complete nose dive crash.
- voisin 5y agoDoes a complete loss of control result in a nose dive? I imagined that planes would be aerodynamic enough to crash at something far closer to horizontal than 90 degrees down.
- azalemeth 5y agoIt depends on exactly what has happened to cause a lack of control. Essentially all fixed-wing aircraft other than high-performance military fighter jets are built to be aerodynamically stable: if you do nothing, they go in a straight line and if they are in an established turn, they tend to continue in that turn. There are plenty of examples of "famous" not-as-bad-as-they-could-have-been crashes where control was effected unconventionally in aircraft made otherwise uncontrollable by mechanical failure -- for example, using throttle control to land aircraft experiencing their phugoid nose up / nose down inherent dynamic stability mode [1, 2]. Full blown nose down is rare unless controlled flight into terrain. The obvious armchair speculation I would make here is that a total separation of the tailplane / stabilator or empennage of the aircraft could cause something approximating that -- the tailplane provides negative lift and without it the aircraft would pitch up until it stalled, and then a series of exponentially growing oscillations would likewise result. It's far better to wait for the NTSB accident report and deliver sympathy and aid to those affected, however -- we don't have the facts and I am sure that they will be determined in the fullness of time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_sho...
- krnlpnc 5y agoWas this the 737NG model that was found to have accelerated wear and possible cracking of pickle forks? Not trying to speculate, only wondering if the same model of plane.
- mzs 5y agoAD 2019-22-10 included NG yes http://www.b737.org.uk/picklefork.htm http://www.b737.org.uk/picklefork.htm
- NamTaf 5y agoThe million-dollar question now is how it managed to recover after plummeting 2/3 its altitude, only to do so again shortly after? That shows that it was still operable and could aviate, and opens up many more questions. https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1505863117343014916 https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1505863117343014916
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- martzy13 5y agoI wonder if it's possible that the increased speed from their downward trajectory generated enough lift to pull them out of their downward trajectory. This "recovery" would be short, as their air speed slowed, lift decreased, and they then resumed their downward trajectory.
- fredoralive 5y agoI'm not sure if briefly levelling off for about 30 seconds is proof that the plane was "operable and could aviate". It feels more like the pilots briefly got some control back, before the situation worsened again. Of course really trying to speculate at this early stage on limited data is pointless. We really need to wait for some hard information to come out of the crash investigation.
- Stevvo 5y agoPossibly explosive decompression then they go way too fast on the emergency descent so pulling out of the dive caused structural failure leading to the crash.
- JoeyBananas 5y agoThis is because flightradar24 measures ground speed. A rock dropped from a building has a ground speed of zero. The apparent recovery was due to the fact that the aerodynamics of a 737 in a nosedive force it to pitch up somewhat. But the pilot probably pushed it back down.
- belter 5y ago"China Eastern flight MU5735 crashes, 132 people were on board" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30751785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30751785 "Plane carrying 132 people crashes in Guangxi hills" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30754868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30754868